Move Space Shuttle Discovery to Texas

[thespacecow]

lol so much for Mark Whittington's idea of giving Texas some other spacecraft instead of Discovery being "drivel", turns out he's not far from the mark.

Addendum: Yes he has his biases, but so is some posters in this very thread, so pot, meet kettle.

[catdlr]

Houston deserves a Space Shuttle, but not like this
by Maxwell Zhu
Monday, January 5, 2026

[Blackstar]

From here:

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/5130/1

"But practically, the damage is done. Generations of public officials and private donors have entrusted priceless cultural artifacts to the Smithsonian believing that this independent organization is shielded from the intrigue and idiosyncrasies of everyday DC politics. Now, Cornyn and Cruz’s maneuvering might have broken that aegis, which bodes poorly for both the Smithsonian’s current collection and the generosity of future donors. If Kansas’s tourism numbers are a little low, what’s to stop Senator Jerry Moran from shipping Dorothy’s ruby slippers to Topeka? If Muhammad Ali had known Congress could transfer Smithsonian artifacts to a private entity, would he ever have entrusted it with his prized gloves and robe?"



Something that I posted up-thread. If this goes through, then in the future, senators can write into bills that their states get stuff from the Smithsonian. Indeed, they could grab lots of stuff. There's nothing preventing a senator from putting in legislation that their state gets a whole bunch of objects. It doesn't take a lot of extrapolation to imagine a new museum being opened in a state and a senator directing that the Smithsonian send a bunch of objects to that new museum. Now politically, that still has to pass and not get stripped out of a bill. But there used to be a high wall for this, and now there is not.

Zhu also raises an interesting point about private donations--when people donate to the Smithsonian, they are donating to the Smithsonian, because of its reputation and prestige and resources and home in the nation's capital. But if a budget law can subsequently redirect artifacts to other institutions--including private ones--then it decreases the attraction of donating to the Smithsonian. I mean, what prevents a senator from putting in a bill that the Smithsonian has to move an artifact to a museum that is privately run by that senator or one of his major donors?



Addendum: Let me give a theoretical example: Discovery is transferred to Houston. George Lucas has a new museum opening in Los Angeles soon. George Lucas donates $100 million to Gavin Newsome's campaign. Gavin Newsome becomes president. George Lucas says to President Newsome "I think that the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo 11 spacecraft currently in the Smithsonian--and the Hope Diamond too--would look better in my museum in Los Angeles." Gavin Newsome then gets a senator(s) to put into a budget bill that these spacecraft (and the big diamond) be transferred to George Lucas' museum. What is the argument against doing that?

[mn]

...
He also raises an interesting point about private donations--when people donate to the Smithsonian, they are donating to the Smithsonian, because of its reputation and prestige and resources and home in the nation's capital. But if a budget law can subsequently redirect artifacts to other institutions--including private ones--then it decreases the attraction of donating to the Smithsonian. I mean, what prevents a senator from putting in a bill that the Smithsonian has to move an artifact to a museum that is privately run by that senator or one of his major donors?

The Shuttle was the property of the US government until it was give to the Smithsonian, so they will try to argue that the US government can still somehow take it back. There is no reason to think that would also extend to private property donated by a private person to the Smithsonian.

[Lee Jay]

...
He also raises an interesting point about private donations--when people donate to the Smithsonian, they are donating to the Smithsonian, because of its reputation and prestige and resources and home in the nation's capital. But if a budget law can subsequently redirect artifacts to other institutions--including private ones--then it decreases the attraction of donating to the Smithsonian. I mean, what prevents a senator from putting in a bill that the Smithsonian has to move an artifact to a museum that is privately run by that senator or one of his major donors?

The Shuttle was the property of the US government until it was give to the Smithsonian, so they will try to argue that the US government can still somehow take it back. There is no reason to think that would also extend to private property donated by a private person to the Smithsonian.

If title is transferred to the Institution and yet Congress can somehow re-assign it without the agreement of the Institution, then they can do the same to anything to which the SI holds title.  There are methods for this for anyone (i.e. eminent domain) but with the SI, the fact that it was created as a public-private partnership makes it possibly easier to defend in court.

I'd like to see a court tell Congress to pound sand on this.  Once title has been transferred, they should no longer have the ability to claw it back.

[Blackstar]

...
He also raises an interesting point about private donations--when people donate to the Smithsonian, they are donating to the Smithsonian, because of its reputation and prestige and resources and home in the nation's capital. But if a budget law can subsequently redirect artifacts to other institutions--including private ones--then it decreases the attraction of donating to the Smithsonian. I mean, what prevents a senator from putting in a bill that the Smithsonian has to move an artifact to a museum that is privately run by that senator or one of his major donors?

The Shuttle was the property of the US government until it was give to the Smithsonian, so they will try to argue that the US government can still somehow take it back. There is no reason to think that would also extend to private property donated by a private person to the Smithsonian.

They are using the power of the purse and legal threats to exert pressure on the Smithsonian. Read the article linked above. As he notes, the senator sicced the Justice Department on the Smithsonian because he didn't like that they were pointing out that they own Discovery, not NASA. What they could do is propose slashing the Smithsonian budget to get what they want. This is not beyond the realm of possibility. If you look further back in this thread, you'll see that I linked to an article about how the administration is currently "reviewing" the Smithsonian's content. They want to erase content that they don't like (things like slavery, civil rights, etc.), and they will threaten Smithsonian funding if they don't get what they want.

Lines have been crossed.

[Blackstar]

I'd like to see a court tell Congress to pound sand on this.  Once title has been transferred, they should no longer have the ability to claw it back.

I too would like to see the courts rule on this. However, as we have seen with many examples throughout 2025, the courts move slowly. There were thousands of people fired from their jobs in 2025, and after many months, courts ruled that some of them were illegally fired. And then when they got their jobs back, they discovered that the budget for their agency/department/office had been eliminated, and so now they could be fired because their job position didn't exist. Didn't really matter what the court said, because people were destroyed in the process.

And suppose that a court does declare that the Smithsonian is the ultimate owner of the Discovery. Congress still has power of the purse. What happens if they then propose cutting $100 million out of the Smithsonian's budget? The Smithsonian, faced with that ultimatum, may agree to a deal, such as "loaning" the Discovery to Houston for 50 years. They'd rather have the money than the big white bird.

I have been somewhat tempted to drive over to Udvar-Hazy and then drive the most realistic route to the nearest port facility and see how many bridges and other obstacles stand in the way. I know that major obstacles exist, especially if they need to bring the orbiter south on Route 28. (See the map I attached where I circled two big overpasses). Going north isn't better, because there's a big overpass going into the Dulles Airport. Somebody who knows route planning for oversize objects could probably plot some of this out. The tail would have to come off, because the height of the orbiter is 58.6 feet and there is no overpass that high. But my quick look is that the tail is 27 feet tall, so you still have a 30-foot tall orbiter to get under a bridge. That's not really going to work, so I assume it would have to go around all the bridges, going on the ramps alongside them, if that's possible. Logistically, it would be crazy. (You can go do this yourself using Googlemaps. You don't even need to do the entire route, just start at Udvar-Hazy and then plot out a route 5 miles north and 5 miles south and look for the bridges.)

I don't know how this is going to play out legally or politically. It's just going to be a low-speed mess for a long time.

[DaveS]

One primary question is how they're going to move the orbiter? On the landing gear? If not, then they're going to need the Overland Transporter (OLT) which I think is still in California Science Center's possession as it was used to move Endeavour from LAX to the CSC. And the know-how to raise and stow the landing gear which required a special GSE cart called the "mule" which supplied the necessary hydraulic pressure. And also a lifting frame to mate/demate the orbiter to the OLT.

[catdlr]

One primary question is how they're going to move the orbiter? On the landing gear? If not, then they're going to need the Overland Transporter (OLT) which I think is still in California Science Center's possession as it was used to move Endeavour from LAX to the CSC. And the know-how to raise and stow the landing gear which required a special GSE cart called the "mule" which supplied the necessary hydraulic pressure. And also a lifting frame to mate/demate the orbiter to the OLT.

Following relocation to the open space outside the museum, two cranes will be required to lift it using a sling, also likely at the California Science Center. Subsequently, the landing gear will be stowed. The remaining steps are depicted in the diagram provided.

I believe Dryden would have the OLT, Sling, and whatever for all this if it ever occurs.

[StraumliBlight]

Washington Post: New NASA head appears to slow controversial Discovery shuttle move [Jan 10]

Terry White, who worked on the shuttles from 1978 through the end of the program in 2011, and helped maintain the thermal protective tiles, said they are “more fragile than an egg shell” and extraordinarily expensive to replace — a single one can cost thousands of dollars. The equipment to move the shuttles has also long been retired.

White said that he does not think the Smithsonian deserved the shuttle — he would have picked Ohio’s Air Force museum — but short of teleportation, he said, “there’s no easy way to move them.”

He is not so convinced that Artemis will meet the appetite from Texas lawmakers or those who felt Houston was overlooked. “They already have previous space capsules,” he said, adding, “that’s nothing compared to the size of the orbiter.”

“I don’t think they would turn it down,” he said, “but they won’t be impressed that they just got something that went a loop around the moon and came back.”

[Lee Jay]

White said that he does not think the Smithsonian deserved the shuttle ...

That statement is unbelievable.  The premier museum system in the country doesn't deserve it???  It's a great display.  I went there three times to see it, and I live over 2,000 miles away.

[Blackstar]

White said that he does not think the Smithsonian deserved the shuttle ...

That statement is unbelievable.  The premier museum system in the country doesn't deserve it???  It's a great display.  I went there three times to see it, and I live over 2,000 miles away.

Everybody is allowed to have an opinion. Some opinions are wrong.

I'll note that both the Florida and California proposals involved displaying shuttles in unique ways. This will damage them over time. (I was told by a person who had worked at both NASA and the Smithsonian that he really did not like the Florida proposal, because they knew that it would produce stress cracks on the shuttle's frame. He was quite angry that they were displaying an artifact in a way that they know will damage it.) The NASM preserved the shuttle as it was retired, essentially as a reference artifact for historians. That is not true for the other two orbiters.

Some other details from memory: Both the LA and Florida proposals had to pay for transportation to the sites. The NASM did not pay for transportation. (I vaguely remember being told that a-that would wipe out the Smithsonian's space department budget, and b-it might not have been legal for the Smithsonian to pay the government. But my memory could be wrong.)

Although the National Museum of the United States Air Force was in the running for an orbiter, I can see why they did not get one. Dayton isn't exactly a heavily-traveled city. Not a lot of tourists. Although the museum gets around a million visitors, there's not a lot to do in Dayton. I've been there. If you want fine dining your choices are Olive Garden and Applebee's. Also, that museum has a long history of ignoring their space artifacts. You can see that even today--they opened a new hangar a number of years ago, and after awhile they reduced some of their displayed space artifacts (why is their GAMBIT in storage?). The museum is run by fighter jocks and they care about fighter aircraft. Space is for the nerds.

[ccdengr]

I was told by a person who had worked at both NASA and the Smithsonian that he really did not like the Florida proposal, because they knew that it would produce stress cracks on the shuttle's frame. He was quite angry that they were displaying an artifact in a way that they know will damage it.

You've mentioned this before, do you have any written source that describes the concern?

I was completely blown away by the Atlantis exhibit, and IMHO it's worth a little damage to get it in that pose -- my family had to drag me away.  I can't imagine any of the other displays being as impactful.

[DanClemmensen]

Some other details from memory: Both the LA and Florida proposals had to pay for transportation to the sites. The NASM did not pay for transportation. (I vaguely remember being told that a-that would wipe out the Smithsonian's space department budget, and b-it might not have been legal for the Smithsonian to pay the government. But my memory could be wrong.)

NASA flew that shuttle on its transport aircraft on a "farewell tour" over several US cities, ending with Washington DC, where it finally landed at Dulles. (I was on the roof of our building in Chantilly with a view of the runway.)  "Transportation" consisted of using a crane to lower the shuttle from the 747 onto the runway and rolling the shuttle into its display location inside the Udvar-Hazy hangar adjacent to the taxiway.

[Blackstar]

You've mentioned this before, do you have any written source that describes the concern?

No. I don't have any of the blueprints or planning documents for the exhibit. But it is mounted on an angle. It was not designed to be mounted on an angle for years. Where do you think the stress is on that frame? It's not up and down, it's on an angle.

[Blackstar]

NASA flew that shuttle on its transport aircraft on a "farewell tour" over several US cities, ending with Washington DC, where it finally landed at Dulles. (I was on the roof of our building in Chantilly with a view of the runway.)  "Transportation" consisted of using a crane to lower the shuttle from the 747 onto the runway and rolling the shuttle into its display location inside the Udvar-Hazy hangar adjacent to the taxiway.

It cost money to fly it to Dulles. And somebody had to pay for the large cranes. There were moving costs. Things are not free. The two other locations had to pay for their own transportation costs, NASM did not.

[DanClemmensen]

NASA flew that shuttle on its transport aircraft on a "farewell tour" over several US cities, ending with Washington DC, where it finally landed at Dulles. (I was on the roof of our building in Chantilly with a view of the runway.)  "Transportation" consisted of using a crane to lower the shuttle from the 747 onto the runway and rolling the shuttle into its display location inside the Udvar-Hazy hangar adjacent to the taxiway.

It cost money to fly it to Dulles. And somebody had to pay for the large cranes. There were moving costs. Things are not free. The two other locations had to pay for their own transportation costs, NASM did not.

Yep. If that shuttle had not gone to Dulles, would NASA have paid for the "farewell tour" flight? My guess: NASA would have needed to pay for a flight to somewhere under any circumstances, just to get the shuttle off their hands. The difference here is the cost of getting the Shuttle from its final landing spot to its final display spot. This is cheaper when the display spot is right next to the airport, no matter who actually pays the money.

[ccdengr]

But it is mounted on an angle. It was not designed to be mounted on an angle for years.

It was designed to take all of the forces of launch with a full load while supported on the three ET attach points, so it's not obvious to me that being at an angle on those attach points, at 1g, empty, is going to be unduly stressing.  Was it designed to sit on its landing gear indefinitely?

[RedLineTrain]

"But practically, the damage is done. Generations of public officials and private donors have entrusted priceless cultural artifacts to the Smithsonian believing that this independent organization is shielded from the intrigue and idiosyncrasies of everyday DC politics. Now, Cornyn and Cruz’s maneuvering might have broken that aegis, which bodes poorly for both the Smithsonian’s current collection and the generosity of future donors. If Kansas’s tourism numbers are a little low, what’s to stop Senator Jerry Moran from shipping Dorothy’s ruby slippers to Topeka? If Muhammad Ali had known Congress could transfer Smithsonian artifacts to a private entity, would he ever have entrusted it with his prized gloves and robe?"

The Smithsonian as an institution is not what confers the national prominence that trumps local considerations.  Rather, it's the geography.  The Dulles Annex is one of the few Smithsonian properties outside the borders of DC.  The Annex is a local political football.

The Smithsonian made a large mistake by putting the Dulles Annex outside DC.  It lacks national protection.

[Jim]

You've mentioned this before, do you have any written source that describes the concern?

No. I don't have any of the blueprints or planning documents for the exhibit. But it is mounted on an angle. It was not designed to be mounted on an angle for years. Where do you think the stress is on that frame? It's not up and down, it's on an angle.

Then the LA display is worse.